The Instigator
SuperRobotWars
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
GriffinGonzales
Con (against)
Losing
30 Points

Age Of Empires is better than Civilization

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,474 times Debate No: 13107
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (11)

 

SuperRobotWars

Pro

Age Of Empires (A.O.E.) is better than Civilization due to its graphics quality, interactivity,and real time strategic play.
GriffinGonzales

Con

First off I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate. I like debating odd topics so here it goes.

Luckily I have played both of these games in the past. As both of these series have different versions, I will be referring to the series as a whole and not any individual game (e.i. "Civilization" in general, not "Civilization: Colonization" ext.).

My arguments are as follows:

MAIN NEG CONTENTION: Moral Values.
When we think of video games, we think of brain rotting, violent, non-educational, plastic wrapped software that millions waste time on every day. These video games give the player absolutely nothing of value. Age of Empires is, of coarse, one of these games. In A.O.E most of the playing time is spent watching pixilated people chop down trees, walk back to a sort of house carrying logs in their arms, and then go back to chop down more trees; beyond that you could have that same pixilated person go and slaughter weaker opponents. Is this what we want our children learning? "Hey kid! Go cut down a tree and then commit genocide on someone just because their team color is different!". I think not.

But there is one exception in this vicious cycle of "cut tree, kill people", and that ladies and gentlemen is Civilization by Sid Meier's. Civilization is more focused on the actually elements of building a culture and society. Contrary to popular belief, recruiting a warrior is more than just collecting enough "food" and "gold" for him to walk out of a building a full grown and able bodied adult. In civilization you must study aspects of society and social studies to chose the best ways to run your empire. Do you want a Caste System to rule your kingdom, how about Free Speech, what's your view on environmentalism controlling the free market? Hey let's send a pre-emptive strike against the Inca empire because they are ruled by a dictator who is bent on destroying your constitutional way of life; not just because their color is blue and you really.... really... hate blue.

AFF CONTENTION : Age Of Empires (A.O.E.) is better than Civilization due to its graphics quality, interactivity,and real time strategic play.

I will refute these three points by simply showing you (the voter) that they are complete bogus.

1. First my opponent states that A.O.E is better because it has better graphic quality. I will show you this is false by providing the following images, both from A.O.E and Civilization versions released in the same year...

Age of Empires: http://www.thealmightyguru.com...
Civilization: http://gallery.techarena.in...

You may decide for yourself who's graphics is better.

2. My opponents says that interactivity is better. Yet again... "Chop wood, Kill other color." vs. "Decide for yourself wether it would be smart to create a secret police to monitor your monotheistic society. Although under the current risk of a Chinese ICBM strike in any one of your major cities, it might be good to prevent a chance of spies."

3. My opponent states that real time strategic play is better. I will admit that, yes, A.O.E is in real time while Civilization is not. But in A.O.E this real time is used to watch your workers slowly gather recourses. And that just ain't fun.

--Thank you for your consideration and I urge a strong vote for the NEG--
Debate Round No. 1
SuperRobotWars

Pro

What you said about the AoE graphics by comparing graphics from the first game of AoE to that of the more recent version of Civilization
Modern AoE Graphics:
http://www.ageofempiresclans.com...
http://www.2404.org...

Modern Civilization Graphics:
http://pc.gamespy.com...
http://www.allbestwallpapers.com...

To counter his "Chop wood, Kill other color" argument I have to say this AoE is a war game its mostly about how well you can develop and use your armies, as well as the aspects of gathering resources makes more sense rather than waiting for your citizen population do it make them (this is how ancient empires actually worked) and there no need to worry about spies due the design of this game although I do agree the AoE population system makes it a pain to develop armies it is still a far more efficient and accurate depiction on what civilizations once were like.

To go against your 3rd argument I will say this: If you don't have resources how can you build anything so naturally you will have to bide your time in order to attack your enemies (or you could cheat) which is quite accurate. You think Genghis Khan would have attacked the Chinese with only one horse? Of course not he needed to raise an army and get enough resources in order for him to attack and conquer his enemies, patience is the key aspect of war and civilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And for your paragraph on AoE having no value that's completely wrong. For one AoE has campaigns which allow you to relive crucial events in human history (The Crusades, The Conquering Of The Aztecs, Genghis Khans Quest For Domination, The Fall Of Rome, Rise Of Babylon, The Rise Of Egypt, and many more), AoE also shows you some of the technologies many civilizations had in that time (Ships, Tools, Weapons, etc . . .etc . . .), and that remark you made about "Is this what we want our children learning? "Hey kid! Go cut down a tree and then commit genocide on someone just because their team color is different!". I think not." I must disagree most of human history has been chopping down trees and waging war (we have even waged war over trees) so any time your kid picks up an accurate history text book expect him to learn something about the art of war, are we not currently at war with a people of a different flag (I should say "Ideology"), and so what if there's war in the game Halo has war, Gears Of War has war, even Civilization has war so if my game is bad yours is just the same, and let me add AoE does have societal (I should say political) aspects although less prominent and useful it still contains some of those exact same aspects, you can do trade, declare peace, neutrality, or war and remember AoE is a war game not a society game, its real time not turn based and maintains a more realistic idea on civilizations.
GriffinGonzales

Con

First off let me thank you for your speedy reply. I like to keep these debates fast so they are still in my mind.

First I will give my rebuttal.

My opponent states...

"AoE is a war game its mostly about how well you can develop and use your armies, as well as the aspects of gathering resources makes more sense rather than waiting for your citizen population do it make them (this is how ancient empires actually worked)"

My opponent seems to claim that ancient empires spent their time collecting recourses and developing armies. This is mostly the truth in many ancient cultures. But did these cultures have reasons for doing these things? Yes, yes they did. Is there any of this reasoning and thoughtfulness in AOE. No there isn't.

This in-depth historical gameplay can only be found Civilization. I think I have already explained adequately how civilization brings these real-life in-depth aspects to the table.

Next my opponent stated that AOE does have this historical thoughtfulness. MY opponent put forward that AOE puts forward events like "The Crusades, The Conquering Of The Aztecs, Genghis Khans Quest For Domination, The Fall Of Rome, Rise Of Babylon, The Rise Of Egypt, and many more".

This is true. But this is not in-depth gameplay. This is a marketing scheme so that producers can list these things on the back of the game box. After destroying the "red-team" and shooting arrows at all their houses until they collapsed on themselves (not realistic), does the player know why this battle has happened? Do they know who these people are and what they stand to gain through this event.

According to my opponent AOE brings you the fall of the roman empire. Does the AOE know anything of why this has happened? Do they know that the fall of the roman empire was caused by deep seeded greed and corruption within the roman imperial system leading back to Julius Caesars decision to cross the rubicon? No, they don't. They learn that the roman empire fell because the "blue-team" chopped down all the walls with axes and destroyed the city center. Realistic? I think not.

Next my opponent basically tried to bring civilization down to AOE's level of basic-ness. -- "even Civilization has war so if my game is bad yours is just the same" -- My opponent seems think that I am saying that war in video-games is bad in general. I am not. Basic "Chop tree, kill other color" war is bad. In-depth thoughtful war like Civilization presents is good. I will give the following chart to prove my point.

AOE reasons to go to war: I don't like their color.

Civilization reasons to go to war: Because they are the prominent power in the oil-rich region, and to get ahead in society we will need to develop trade relations dependent on a supply of oil., they are a Buddhist country and our population can't stand polytheistic states., an enemy country has ICBM's and we want to secure them before they are used against us. ext. ext. ext.

Now my opponent didn't really make a case of his own, he just refuted mine. And I think the majority of my cases stand strong. In the next round if my opponent could put forward some contentions of his own on why AOE is better (not just why it is good), we will be able to continue this debate and not be stuck with old contentions to deal with.

---thanks for listening (reading)---
Debate Round No. 2
SuperRobotWars

Pro

What my opponent has failed to mention is that AoE shows you the historical and tactical significance of those campaigns through the scripts before and after the game. AoE also tells you why these combats happened, such as in how The Crusades happened due to the Christians from Europe receiving the Popes okay to go and reclaim the Holy Land (Jerusalem), they tell the significance of barbarians in the Fall Of Rome, and so on and so forth. You also say that Civilization brings "real-life in-depth aspects to the table" but I must disagree, war is not turn based and there is the fact that in some wars it's impossible to reason with your opponent through diplomacy and you must do it with brute force (WWII, The Haitian Revolution, and several other wars), as well as the point that long ago communications were worse then they are now (much much worse) so generally by the time a messenger had arrived with the compromise for the two empires a war had already started (Incas are an exception).

Your comment on how the battle scenes look bears no weight due to the simple fact that with our current technology we cannot make battle scenes look super realistic it would make the game too expensive and computer requirements insane. Plus the graphics of the battle scenes are far worse than those of AoE and far less realistic as well, plus in Civilization don't you have to eradicate your opponents (or a least get them on your side) as well I believe you do. And to counter that argument of "Do they know who these people are and what they stand to gain through this event" the answer is this: they are your opponent and they are your enemy which stand in the way of resources and peace with you and your allies. And I know for a fact it's the same in Civilization (I had to nuke the French off the face of the earth due to there constant military harassment and the destruction of my cities) so don't bother continuing with that feeble argument for it bears no weight.

And your argument on the Fall Of Rome is a farce due to the fact that they do talk the "deep seeded greed and corruption within the roman imperial system leading back to Julius Caesars decision to cross the Rubicon" all you have to do is read the historical intro that is shown at the beginning of each campaign (you can choose to read it or ignore it the game doesn't care its up to the gamer). I would also like to address your enemies color argument in this paragraph and here's the response: its to identify ally and enemy targets since its a real time war game you normally won't and don't have the time to click on each individual unit to determine friend from foe. I would also like to point out that "In-depth thoughtful war" in real life is done in a moment its not turn based where I can have 50 turns to come up with a proper strategic decision, its more like having 50 seconds to come up with a proper strategic decision for in war "too much thought can be your downfall" (every military genius in history had to come to turns with this concept). And your arguments on reasons to go to war are the same as ours "the enemy has resources we need to survive, and(or) the enemy poses a threat, etc . . . etc . . ." AoE is not just mindless war its war for reason rarely will you ever have an docile and peaceful enemy, in AoE your enemy will generally be the one to shoot first and encroach on your territory (unless you cheat).

And a new argument: people play games for fun, thrills, and to provoke certain parts of the mind. AoE is to the real time strategy part of the mind not just the diplomatic side, AoE is a game of conquest not just society so people who wish to play a accurate war game would play AoE and people who wish to play a game on society and diplomacy would play Civilization. So in all truth this argument is more about the opinions of the gamers rather than that of us debaters.

I would like thank my opponent for such a great debate.
Vote Pro.

Sources:
http://www.civilization.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.ageofempires3.com...
http://www.microsoft.com...
http://www.microsoft.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
GriffinGonzales

Con

As my opponent only had a short space at the beginning of this debate I will make this quick.

My opponent argues again that AOE has historical thoughtfulness; but he has only stated that this is in the historical battle reenactment mode, which very few players actually play. The rest of the game is as I've put "chop tree, kill other color". But still this historical connection does not match the in-depth-ness that follows Civilization throughout the entire game.

My opponent also states that AOE has more realistic battles. In what battle will you ever be able to control every single man on the battlefield with a click of a mouse? In civilization, you prepare yourself as best you can, give your armies the supplies and leadership they need, send them to attack and cross your fingers as you watch it play out. This is the far more realistic approach.

Also, a point that I am surprised has not been brought up is that gamers simply like Civilization better. Here are some of the ratings for the two games...

IGN rating for Civilization IV: 9.4 outstanding (the same score that Rome Total War and Empire Total War were given).
IGN Age of Empires III: 8.8 great.

Civilization has a significantly higher rating on rating sites across the net. (IGN is just one of them).

Lastly, I would like to thank my opponent for this great debate. Vote neg or die trying.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
Diplomacy, ergo Civilization.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
This Is Necessary Unfortunately
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
Fine, I'll make the argument!
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
Cool. Could you please create an argument? (I'm really busy until 9.30pm, +12GMT, which is 7 and a half hours from now)
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
I want a nice clean fight . . .
No shots below the waist . . .
No scratching or gouging . . .
Fight!
Q
?
Posted by GriffinGonzales 6 years ago
GriffinGonzales
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Posted by Jurn77 6 years ago
Jurn77
Larz, let's do it then!

I never said that Age of Empires being set in a particular time period (depending on which title) is a definite disadvantage.

I mean that a Scenario- Creator (like myself) enjoys having a wide range of units available to my campaign, as well as a civilization creator, therefore being able to make an infinite amount of possibilities in Empire Earth.

With Age of Empires however, I sometimes feel like my maps cannot go to their true potential, because of the limited amount of possibilities depending on the game.

I will continue on this when we have our debate, I have many arguments ready and would not want to spoil them here.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
Jurn77: I'd be very happy to debate that one with you (if you still dare)! There is no inherent advantage to having a wider scope over a particular period in depth - indeed, I think this makes EE more unrealistic.
Posted by Jurn77 6 years ago
Jurn77
Larz:

EMPIRE EARTH is a classic - don't dare compare it to Age of Empires, anyways. Age of Empires is great, but E.E. has a much wider scope. There both great though.

On note of this debate, it is just dumb. They are games of two different genres. AoE is a Real-Time Strategy game, whilst Civ is a turn-based strategy game. It's just ridiculous to compare the two.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
"Chuck Norris can beat Total War" - Captain Obvious

On an unrelated note, EE was MUCH worse than AoE 2 or 3, probably on par with AoE 1 in all respects but graphics quality. Dare not compare the two.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
SuperRobotWarsGriffinGonzalesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: counter VB
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
SuperRobotWarsGriffinGonzalesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Totaly convinced me civ was better.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
SuperRobotWarsGriffinGonzalesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - CON introduced new arguments in the last half of the last round. Grammar - CON had a few annoying fragments. Arguments - CON dropped many arguments in the last round. Sources - PRO used more.
Vote Placed by Sonofkong 6 years ago
Sonofkong
SuperRobotWarsGriffinGonzalesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
SuperRobotWarsGriffinGonzalesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
SuperRobotWarsGriffinGonzalesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
SuperRobotWarsGriffinGonzalesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TPF 6 years ago
TPF
SuperRobotWarsGriffinGonzalesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 6 years ago
Shestakov
SuperRobotWarsGriffinGonzalesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
SuperRobotWarsGriffinGonzalesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31